What do you think?
Rate this book
Canine Enrichment
Canine Enrichment for the Real World Workbook
In this companion workbook to their best selling book, Canine Enrichment for the Real World , authors Allie Bender and Emily Strong present a detailed breakdown of each of the steps of their Enrichment Framework and provide all the information you need to successfully and sustainably incorporate enrichment into your dog’s every day life. Offering enrichment ensures that all of your dog’s needs are met, in every aspect of their life, from health and hygiene to physical and mental exercise to safety and security. The Canine Enrichment for the Real World Workbook will show you how to discern whether or not each aspect of enrichment is being met and how to develop and implement a plan to meet the needs which have room for growth. This workbook is a fantastic resource for anyone who lives with or works with dogs! Using the Enrichment Framework, readers will be able to troubleshoot difficult dog training problems and identify the underlying causes of both maladaptive behaviors and nuisance behaviors.
- GenresDogsNonfiction
76 pages, Paperback
Published June 8, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 26, 2026
Two Stars - 'It was ok.'
The book adopts enrichment protocols designed for zoo environments and attempts to adapt them for dogs living with human guardians.
I liked:
♦ (Attempting the) utilization of technical nomenclature to distinguish between covert and overt behaviors, facilitating scientific observation devoid of anthropomorphic bias.
♦ The "Dead-Man-Test".
♦ Implementation of an "Intensity Chart" and detailed logs to facilitate data-driven assessments of behavioral modification.
♦ Consistent use of neutral language that accounts for breed-specific genetic predispositions and fixed action patterns.
· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·
I disliked:
The authors invest significant effort into defining precise scientific jargon and methodologies, yet they fail to maintain internal consistency when applying these systems to their own case studies.
However, when demonstrating how to transition from theory to practice in the case study section - intended to serve as a template for the reader - one of the authors, Allie, immediately abandons the established protocol. Despite the book’s earlier insistence on avoiding binary boxes, the demonstration utilizes a flowchart that reverts to "Yes/No" questions and a simplified, non-standardized marking system:
This creates a significant methodological disconnect. By " freestyling " the data entry, the author undermines the very rigor the book claims to champion. It raises a critical question of utility: why mandate a complex nomenclature for the reader if the authors themselves find it too cumbersome or unnecessary to apply in a professional demonstration? This inconsistency suggests that the technical framework is more for aesthetic branding than functional behavioral analysis.
The book’s effectiveness is severely hampered by a lack of linguistic precision and a failure to provide actionable, replicable strategies for the non-professional audience it claims to (partially) target.
The authors’ own evaluation metrics frequently contradict the data provided. For instance, in a scenario regarding "Calming" enrichment with a dog, Ruby, who "will not leave crate if man is home and woman is not".
Logically, if multiple resting places are available, the dog has choices; she is simply exercising a consistent preference for the crate (probably due to fear). Labeling this as a lack of choice is semantically misleading.
The authors also warn extensively against the dangers of labeling dogs:
Yet, mere pages later, they introduce the term "nuisance behaviors" to describe undesirable behaviors.
While the workbook purports to be a replicable protocol for all skill levels, the "solutions" provided for deep-seated behavioral issues are frustratingly abstract. For a dog that refuses to leave her crate in the husband’s presence, the suggested "social interaction" enrichment includes:
A dog shut down in a crate is cognitively unavailable for "snuggle time" or "daycare." Furthermore, the book prescribes advanced behavioral objectives-such as "Relaxation Protocols" and "Self-Sufficiency"-without providing the technical "how-to." These are not simple enrichment activities; they are intensive behavioral modification programs that typically require professional oversight, contradicting the book’s claim that these strategies are:
The authors’ presentation of Ruby’s "progress" serves as a final example of methodological instability. By simultaneously introducing an enrichment plan and a pharmaceutical intervention, they have created a classic confounding variable that invalidates the case study as proof of their protocol's efficacy.
From a behavioral science perspective, this is a significant oversight. Medication - particularly anxiolytics or SSRIs - is designed to alter the dog’s neurochemistry to lower arousal and increase the threshold for reactivity. Without a baseline period to distinguish the effects of the enrichment from the effects of the medication, the "success" described is purely anecdotal.
Finally, the authors attempt to bypass the ethical reality of training tools by dismissing the choice between safety and aversive equipment as a "false dichotomy."
In reality, this is a clear biological binary. A stimulus is either aversive (relying on pain or pressure to inhibit behavior) or it is not. Attempting to "middle-ground" the use of aversive tools is a philosophical contradiction that obscures the mechanics of operant conditioning.
Other, minor things I disliked:
♦ The book presents "doggie daycare" as a universal management tool without defining the criteria for a safe facility. By omitting any guidance on how to evaluate staff-to-dog ratios, group play management, or the avoidance of bullying behaviors, the authors leave the reader to rely on luck. A "bad" daycare is not a management tool; it is a primary source of sensory overload, learned aggression, and trauma that can undo months of behavioral training.
♦ The suggestion that two dogs will "wear each other out" and thus provide sufficient physical exercise is a dangerous oversimplification. This encourages owners to rely on canine social play- which is often high-arousal and repetitive - as a substitute for structured, species-appropriate exercise.
Without clarification, this incentivizes the acquisition of a second dog as a "convenience," often leading to the creation of a "double-trouble" dynamic where both dogs remain under-stimulated and potentially develop reactive behaviors.
♦ Perhaps the most concerning aspect is the book’s metric for maintaining an activity:
This framing shifts the focus from dog welfare to human enjoyment. By setting "not detrimental" as the threshold for maintaining a behavior, the authors validate activities that the dog may find boring, confusing, or aversive, provided they are not strictly "harmful." This is a significant departure from the principle of Agency, which they claim to champion. If the dog is not finding an activity reinforcing, then the activity is essentially a human-centric imposition - the exact opposite of the enrichment they claim to promote.
♦ Lastly, the book has a tendency to refer to owners as 'parents' - a term that sentimentally anthropomorphizes the dog. This 'parenting' narrative is professionally counterproductive; it clouds the guardian's judgment and masks the fact that a dog is a distinct predatory species with specific, non-human behavioral requirements that a 'parental' framework is unequipped to manage.
The book adopts enrichment protocols designed for zoo environments and attempts to adapt them for dogs living with human guardians.
I liked:
♦ (Attempting the) utilization of technical nomenclature to distinguish between covert and overt behaviors, facilitating scientific observation devoid of anthropomorphic bias.
♦ The "Dead-Man-Test".
♦ Implementation of an "Intensity Chart" and detailed logs to facilitate data-driven assessments of behavioral modification.
♦ Consistent use of neutral language that accounts for breed-specific genetic predispositions and fixed action patterns.
· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·
I disliked:
The authors invest significant effort into defining precise scientific jargon and methodologies, yet they fail to maintain internal consistency when applying these systems to their own case studies.
Why “likely” and not “yes”?
Using the word “likely” is more accurate than using the word “yes” in this context. It’s virtually impossible for us to know with 100% certainty that another individual’s needs are being met. We have metrics, absolutely, but the metrics that we have are not the be-all end-all. We opted for “likely” to remind folks that we can’t just cross something off the list forever; there’s a possibility that we’ll need to address that category in the future
Are agency needs being met?
Appropriate (A): “My dog has agency and it’s appropriate to provide
that in this context.”
In progress (IP): “I’m already actively working on this.”
Potential room for growth (PRFG): “We may need to address this.”
Room for growth (RFG): “We definitely need to address this.”
Inappropriate (IA): “My dog has agency and it’s inappropriate to
provide that in this context.
However, when demonstrating how to transition from theory to practice in the case study section - intended to serve as a template for the reader - one of the authors, Allie, immediately abandons the established protocol. Despite the book’s earlier insistence on avoiding binary boxes, the demonstration utilizes a flowchart that reverts to "Yes/No" questions and a simplified, non-standardized marking system:
Step 2: Are needs being met?
Here is a checklist that helps assess whether Ruby’s needs are being met in various areas of enrichment. Although we recommend the nomenclature provided above, L = likely, IP = in progress, PRFG = potential room for growth, and RFG = room for growth, in this chart Allie simply used a checkmark to indicate “yes,” a hyphen for areas that were not applicable, a question mark when she was unable to assess based on the available information, and a box for “no.”
This creates a significant methodological disconnect. By " freestyling " the data entry, the author undermines the very rigor the book claims to champion. It raises a critical question of utility: why mandate a complex nomenclature for the reader if the authors themselves find it too cumbersome or unnecessary to apply in a professional demonstration? This inconsistency suggests that the technical framework is more for aesthetic branding than functional behavioral analysis.
The book’s effectiveness is severely hampered by a lack of linguistic precision and a failure to provide actionable, replicable strategies for the non-professional audience it claims to (partially) target.
The authors’ own evaluation metrics frequently contradict the data provided. For instance, in a scenario regarding "Calming" enrichment with a dog, Ruby, who "will not leave crate if man is home and woman is not".
Calming:
Does your pet have a choice between at least two desirable options in
this scenario? No.
Scenario: Ruby has multiple places available to rest, but will
only rest in crate.
Logically, if multiple resting places are available, the dog has choices; she is simply exercising a consistent preference for the crate (probably due to fear). Labeling this as a lack of choice is semantically misleading.
The authors also warn extensively against the dangers of labeling dogs:
Again, a problem with labels is that they’re assumptions at best and detrimental at worst. The same dog may be labeled as “fearful” or “aggressive” after a bite, and the outcomes for that dog are often dependent on the words we choose to use to label them and their behavior. Labels have a way of creeping into our list of desirable and undesirable behaviors; we shouldn’t let them
Yet, mere pages later, they introduce the term "nuisance behaviors" to describe undesirable behaviors.
Appropriate species- or breed-typical behaviors are performed with enough frequency and diversity so as to reduce nuisance behaviors
While the workbook purports to be a replicable protocol for all skill levels, the "solutions" provided for deep-seated behavioral issues are frustratingly abstract. For a dog that refuses to leave her crate in the husband’s presence, the suggested "social interaction" enrichment includes:
Social Interaction: (...) We need to improve her relationship with the husband so she will choose to go on potty walks with him.
Snuggle time with your dog!
Play and outings with your dog
Doggie dates for dogs who enjoy one or two friends
Playgroups, dog daycares, or dog parks for dogs who are social
butterflies
A dog shut down in a crate is cognitively unavailable for "snuggle time" or "daycare." Furthermore, the book prescribes advanced behavioral objectives-such as "Relaxation Protocols" and "Self-Sufficiency"-without providing the technical "how-to." These are not simple enrichment activities; they are intensive behavioral modification programs that typically require professional oversight, contradicting the book’s claim that these strategies are:
...replicable by people with a wide array of skill levels.
We need to teach Ruby skills that allow her to gain some level of self-sufficiency.
Ruby needs to learn how to feel comfortable in many other places
Providing choices and teaching your dog how to make choices on their own
Teaching your dog how to be comfortable being alone
Relaxation protocols that create conditions for a dog to relax on their own and put it on cue rather than trying to force relaxation by controlling body position
The authors’ presentation of Ruby’s "progress" serves as a final example of methodological instability. By simultaneously introducing an enrichment plan and a pharmaceutical intervention, they have created a classic confounding variable that invalidates the case study as proof of their protocol's efficacy.
Ruby’s family saw progress in all aspects of the categories and activities we started her with, and she had started a medication protocol per her vet.
From a behavioral science perspective, this is a significant oversight. Medication - particularly anxiolytics or SSRIs - is designed to alter the dog’s neurochemistry to lower arousal and increase the threshold for reactivity. Without a baseline period to distinguish the effects of the enrichment from the effects of the medication, the "success" described is purely anecdotal.
Finally, the authors attempt to bypass the ethical reality of training tools by dismissing the choice between safety and aversive equipment as a "false dichotomy."
The belief that either you use the prong collar to meet the client’s needs of safety and security, or you ditch the prong collar to meet the dog’s needs of security, sensory stimulation, and agency is almost always a false dichotomy.
In reality, this is a clear biological binary. A stimulus is either aversive (relying on pain or pressure to inhibit behavior) or it is not. Attempting to "middle-ground" the use of aversive tools is a philosophical contradiction that obscures the mechanics of operant conditioning.
Other, minor things I disliked:
♦ The book presents "doggie daycare" as a universal management tool without defining the criteria for a safe facility. By omitting any guidance on how to evaluate staff-to-dog ratios, group play management, or the avoidance of bullying behaviors, the authors leave the reader to rely on luck. A "bad" daycare is not a management tool; it is a primary source of sensory overload, learned aggression, and trauma that can undo months of behavioral training.
♦ The suggestion that two dogs will "wear each other out" and thus provide sufficient physical exercise is a dangerous oversimplification. This encourages owners to rely on canine social play- which is often high-arousal and repetitive - as a substitute for structured, species-appropriate exercise.
Without clarification, this incentivizes the acquisition of a second dog as a "convenience," often leading to the creation of a "double-trouble" dynamic where both dogs remain under-stimulated and potentially develop reactive behaviors.
♦ Perhaps the most concerning aspect is the book’s metric for maintaining an activity:
(...) only to discover that the client is doing an activity because they enjoy it even if it’s “not working.” If that’s the case, and as long as it’s not detrimental to the needs of the dog and their goals, keep it!
This framing shifts the focus from dog welfare to human enjoyment. By setting "not detrimental" as the threshold for maintaining a behavior, the authors validate activities that the dog may find boring, confusing, or aversive, provided they are not strictly "harmful." This is a significant departure from the principle of Agency, which they claim to champion. If the dog is not finding an activity reinforcing, then the activity is essentially a human-centric imposition - the exact opposite of the enrichment they claim to promote.
♦ Lastly, the book has a tendency to refer to owners as 'parents' - a term that sentimentally anthropomorphizes the dog. This 'parenting' narrative is professionally counterproductive; it clouds the guardian's judgment and masks the fact that a dog is a distinct predatory species with specific, non-human behavioral requirements that a 'parental' framework is unequipped to manage.
March 28, 2023
A practical, easy to use guide to meeting your dogs needs!
My favorite thing about this workbook is the worksheets! I appreciate that the authors walk you through the categories of canine enrichment and provide examples of completed worksheets then give you blank worksheets to fill out with your own dog(s). Now whenever I encounter a "behavior problem" or catch myself recognizing an undesirable behavior, I stop to analyze which of the enrichment needs are not being met.
My favorite thing about this workbook is the worksheets! I appreciate that the authors walk you through the categories of canine enrichment and provide examples of completed worksheets then give you blank worksheets to fill out with your own dog(s). Now whenever I encounter a "behavior problem" or catch myself recognizing an undesirable behavior, I stop to analyze which of the enrichment needs are not being met.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews